Elementary, My Dear Watson
Country Squire magazine goes after "the usual suspects" — its list of alleged virus deniers. What's going on inside this controversy you may not have heard about? Planet Waves FM reports.
A WRITER NAMED ROGER WATSON has adopted Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey as his own personal piñata. He writes for something called Country Squire, which you would expect to publish articles on how to re-pot your begonias, make a squirrel-proof bird feeder or hold a respectable lawn party.
Instead, Watson has taken up the cause of going against those whom he asserts are “virus deniers.” He seems to think they are just like Holocaust deniers, lacking all humanity and defiant in the face of known history. (On the modern internet, being tagged a “denier” is akin to being called racist, homophobe, or misogynist, with the added inflection of being a touch crazy as well as stupid and immoral.)
Watson’s favorite people to pick on are two doctors in New Zealand who support themselves with an Odysee channel and many other resources — most of them free — devoted to unraveling and documenting scientific history and teaching natural health. They are a breed apart, based on the depth of their research and the quality of their presentations.
Watson mentions other alleged offenders, including Drs. Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman. What they all have in common is that Watson never mentions any of their actual ideas, or critiques their scientific analysis. If you read Watson, you never find out why these people think the way they think. You won’t even get a clue. In his expert opinion, they are merely wrong.
The author of this article is host of Planet Waves FM.
The Fault Line in Modern Science
Watson’s complaints point to a much deeper issue, one that the writer is trying with all his wit and charm to distract people from.
Here’s the problem he is dancing around.
What started as a split in the “covid truth” movement has revealed a fault-line running through the middle of modern medical science, and by extension, all of science. Most people don’t know that the question is being asked, but it is: Do viruses exist in the way we were told they do, as invisible disease bombs that freely jump from one person to another, wreaking havoc on individual lives and on society?
This is the most significant question that has, after 900 days of living with “covid” terrorism, lockdowns and “vaccines,” finally bubbled to the surface. People are asking because we now know that 200 governments and institutions around the world have denied that they have a sample of SARS-CoV-2 taken from a human patient.
None can point to a published paper showing such a specimen exists, and this has virus-lovers flailing. The same is true with all of the early papers out of China, the United States and elsewhere, allegedly proving that SARS-CoV-2 exists.
Of In Silico Sequences and Contrived Viruses
All government and medical institutions have are hypothetical “virus” sequences made up on computers, called in silico sequences. They exist as computer models only — they are the product of virtual reality. They are also known as metagenomic transcripts, contrived viruses or mimicked clinical specimens, among other things. Oh, I forgot “synthetic nucleotide technology.” Anything but real virus. From a person.
If the medical establishment doesn’t have any samples of real virus, from a person, how can they test whether it causes disease? If they’re never found the virus in nature, how can they tell whether someone is infected? Never has it been shown that even one line of this made-up genetic code matches anything taken from a claimed virus.
That viruses exist as we were told they do — as nearly unstoppable, replication-competent disease vectors — is considered a given, not subject to question, evaluation or review. It is held as an article of faith, the missing line from the Pledge of Allegiance.
And now, after we have heard about little other than alleged viruses around and around the clock for nearly three years, some people with medical and scientific qualifications (among others) have decided to investigate. Along the way, all of germ theory has come up for re-evaluation: that’s the idea that one particle causes one disease, to the exclusion of all other factors (such as diet, toxicity levels, environmental factors, life habits, stress and all other medical conditions, to name a few).
And the argument being made by Watson and many others is not that viruses actually exist; rather, it’s that we should not try to find out whether they do. They claim to advocate for science, but are against conducting a scientific experiment.
Questioning the Irrefutable Fact of Viruses
We have all had the irrefutable fact of viruses lectured, drilled and injected into us since were were months-old. I recall the name “Jonas Salk” being spoken with reverence by my 4th grade teacher. I do not remember a single discussion at any time I was in school that ever subjected this basic scientific matter to evaluation.
(Once in extracurricular training to be a university-level sex education counselor, I asked two Erie County, NY public health officials about HIV and AIDS. I said that I’d read about the issue in The New York Times. I was promptly escourted out to the corridor and thrown out of the program minutes later — and was told that I should stick to journalism.)
With viruses standing as the agreed-upon enemy that always was and will be the enemy, we’ve been told endlessly that we live in the age of modern medical miracles — thanks to vaccines, which protect us from humanity’s allegedly most vile, invisible adversary.
Making a ‘Staggering Sum’ from Five Dollar Subscriptions
Before we come back to that, let’s test out Watson’s ability to reason, and to report basic facts. Sam and Mark Bailey paid for, and survived, medical school, internship, residency, and years of practice — with their humanity intact, which is difficult. They then dropped out of the medical system for ethical reasons, giving up lucrative careers as practitioners (and in Sam’s case, as a popular television presenter).
Watson thinks the Baileys are telling us about the history of virology so they can make “staggering” amounts of money. We learn from his reportage that they somehow do this charging a voluntary $5 subscription fee for a video program that takes about 50 hours to produce. He then fabricated their income based on the number of free subscribers to put their annual pay into seven digits.
They would deserve it. Yet he offers no better motive for why someone might devote their existence to deceiving the public. Never does he say, “Maybe they’re just mistaken.” He does not say, “They get some things right, and some things wrong.” No — they must be evil. He never critiques the facts in their content; he has not one word to say about the science or technology involved.
He never tells us the secret of the in silico sequence. Not one mention of the wholly absurd PCR and its fraudulent use as a “diagnostic” tool. No mention of the false positive problem.
Everyone working on this issue knows that even asking the virus question subjects them to “deplatforming” (i.e., getting thrown off of YouTube) and cancellation by everyone from their subscribers to their parents, friends, children and colleagues. Sam Bailey was dislodged from her job as a television personality in 2020 for questioning the “covid” narrative. This is not the buttery side of the bread.
How to Spot Sham Journalism
We live in a time when anyone can pretend to be a journalist. Just start a blog and write PRESS in Sharpie on a slip of cardboard, and you’re ready to go. However, there are some rules, if you think journalism should be honest and fair.
Reading Watson’s latest article, I noticed that the Baileys are referenced many times, but never quoted. The writer accused them of medical and scientific malpractice, and of intentionally deceiving the public for profit — but he never wrote to them and asked them for comment. He never called them. He has never written to them or spoken with them, ever.
Anyone about to be accused of wrongdoing in a published article has the right to offer their best defense — prior to publication, and to have that printed. Any writer who does not honor this basic rule has an agenda other than telling a straight story.
If the person being written about in an article is not directly quoted by the writer, that invalidates the article as journalism. It is by definition propaganda.
In the spirit of fair play, I wrote to Country Squire’s editors about this omission, and after five days have yet to receive a response. Watson is also the editor-in-chief of another publication, which suggests he should be well-versed in the ground rules of journalism.
Rounding Up All the Usual Suspects
Watson has another problem. He claims to be a biochemist. Normally this would be an asset. It would allow him to be conversant in the technology involved. It might allow him to help the public undersand what it’s about.
Yet the arguments being made by the Baileys, Cowan, Kaufman and “the usual suspects” (as he calls them, missing the irony of that quote from the film Casablanca) relate to molecular biochemistry. This is a topic that you probably never learned about when you were dissecting frogs in high school bio class.
Yet Watson, who based on his qualifications should understand the technical details, has not one word to say on this topic. And it is the whole topic. He makes it seem like it’s all a matter of opinion — that is, about “what you believe in,” and who can yell the loudest.
So either he does not understand the issues, or he is pretending not to.
He must have heard somewhere that journalists are supposed to quote people. Instead of the Baileys themselves, he picks Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once a United States senator from New York State, who famously said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
So according to Watson, even if there are two sides of the story, you’re not going to hear about the other side from him; or from anyone. Opposing facts are not allowed.
That and little else is the essence of the situation we are all facing with the “covid” issue and the wider virus and vaccine issues. Sure, if you leave out the facts, it all seems like either public officials are being truthful, or it’s all an endless matter of opinion. State a fact, and one is frequently deplatformed.
The Virus Challenge
The current topic of conversation in Country Squire and elsewhere is a challenge to the scientific establishment to prove that viruses exist in the way we were told they exist. It’s being called the “Virus Challenge,” and a group of nine MDs, five Ph.D.s, a naturopath and two highly accomplished independent researchers (among others) have signed on. These include a former vice president and chief science officer of Pfizer.
While Country Squire and many others say they are “pro science,” they are decidedly anti-scientific experiment. They are arguing that the experiment should never even happen. The virus should get the gold medal without showing up for the meet. It deserves the Oscar even though there was no movie.
At one point in his article, Watson writes that the Baileys and company, “Remarkably, have even persuaded Mike Yeadon, former scientific researcher and vice president at drugs giant Pfizer Inc. who, until this point, seemed like a voice of reason over Covid-19 to sign.”
What exactly did they allegedly persuade him of? That there should be an experiment to determine whether viruses exist.
Watson is giving the the Baileys a lot of credit; Mike Yeadon thinks for himself. He is already a scientist and understands the purpose of experimentation. I have corresponded with Dr. Yeadon periodically since May, and from what I have learned, it seems he persuaded himself — by looking at the data. I was among many people who urged him to do so. The rest was up to him.
Listen to an interview with Mike Yeadon
Child’s Play (or ‘That Hollow Feeling in Your Abdomen’)
"When you read the earliest such paper, you may get that hollow feeling in your abdomen (as I did) when you realize that what’s being described does not conform to 'the scientific method’,” Yeadon wrote in a recent Telegram post.
He expressed another problem — that of “SARS-CoV-2” not growing in human lung tissue or normal human bronchial epithelial cells (HNBE).
“When I was in R&D, leading lung/respiratory/allergy research for many years, we routinely employed NHBE as test systems, for example to look at the effect of experimental medicines & other stimuli on airway lining cells. How it could be possible that NHBE don’t easily support replication of an alleged respiratory virus is severely problematic in my view.”
Yeadon added, “I don’t treat this as a religious matter. I couldn’t care less one way or another whether viruses as a class exist. That’s not the problem. The problem is that essentially the entire world is hostage to the testable but untested assumption that SARS-CoV-2 is a bona fide infective agent of human airways.”
Yeadon said that once you understand the scientific issues involved, the matter is as simple as “child’s play.”
‘We Thought We Knew’
A century ago, another renowned scientist came up against a similar issue. During the 1919 “Spanish flu” outbreak, Milton Rosneau, then the United States’ leading public health doctor, did a series of experiments to determine whether the most contagious disease ever known could in fact be spread from one person to another.
In multiple controlled experiments on the East and West coasts of the United States, it could not be done.
"As a matter of fact, we entered the outbreak with a notion that we know the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person,” Rosneau wrote in the August 2, 1919 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease,” he concludes.
Watson and others whine about the tragedy overturning 100 years of “established science.” However, that happened 100 years ago. The Baileys, Cowan, Kaufman, Yeadon and others conducting the Virus Challenge, are just following up on old business. ++